{"id":170382,"date":"2010-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-08T08:15:10","modified_gmt":"2017-08-08T02:45:10","slug":"business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
                                         1\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         NAGPUR BENCH\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n               WRIT PETITION NO.  4114  OF  2010\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n     Dhyaneshwar Mahadeo Ambure,\n     aged about 55 years, occupation\n\n\n\n\n                                              \n     Business, r\/o Wadgaon Range,\n     Tq. Karanja, District - Washim.             ...   PETITIONER\n\n                Versus\n\n\n\n\n                                    \n     1. The State of Maharashtra\n                     \n        through its Secretary of Food,\n        Civil Supply and Consumer\n        Protection Department,\n                    \n        Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n\n     2. District Supply Officer, Washim,\n        Tq. and District - Washim.\n      \n   \n\n\n\n     3. Anil Yashwant Padhen,\n        age - Major, Occupation - Not\n        Known, r\/o Wadgaon Range\n        Post - Manbha Tq. Karanja,\n\n\n\n\n\n        District - Washim.                        ...   RESPONDENTS\n\n\n\n     Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n     Shri A.M. Joshi, Advocate for respondents No. 1 & 2.\n                              .....\n\n                                    CORAM :  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                               AUGUST 27, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
                  Heard   Shri   Patil,   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner <\/p>\n
     and Shri Joshi, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 finally by <\/p>\n
     consent, by making Rule returnable forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
     2.            The   contention   is,   the   Deputy   Commissioner   of <\/p>\n
     Supplies,   on   18.06.2007,   allowed   revision   and   set   aside   the <\/p>\n
     orders   of   District   Supply   Officer   (DSO)   dated   08.05.2007   and <\/p>\n
     directed   enquiry   on   six   points.     Ignoring   that,   a   show   cause <\/p>\n
     notice dated 29.08.2008 was served upon the petitioner which <\/p>\n
     was replied by him.  On 14.01.2009, the Tahsildar recommended <\/p>\n
     a   minor   punishment.     The   DSO   overlooked   all   this   and   on <\/p>\n
     15.06.2009   canceled   the   authorization   of   fair   price   shop <\/p>\n
     forfeiting   entire   security   deposit.     The   petitioner   raised   his <\/p>\n
     grievance before the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies on <\/p>\n
     06.07.2009 and that authority directed fine of Rs.1,000\/- to be <\/p>\n
     inflicted   upon   the   petitioner   and   restored   his   authorization.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent No. 3 – complainant then approached the Hon’ble <\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                            3<\/span>
\n     Minister and the Hon’ble Minister has restored the earlier order <\/p>\n
     of cancellation of authorization.\n<\/p>\n
     3.           Shri   Patil,   learned   counsel   has   invited   attention   to <\/p>\n
     Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991 to urge that without <\/p>\n
     following   the   prescribed   procedure,   punishment   has   been <\/p>\n
     inflicted for defaults of serious nature and the Hon’ble Minister <\/p>\n
     has overlooked the three categories of defaults as noted therein.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned counsel further states that the material on record <\/p>\n
     showing that nobody had complained against the establishment <\/p>\n
     of the petitioner has not been evaluated.  The fact that in past 12 <\/p>\n
     years, there were no such incident is also overlooked.\n<\/p>\n
     4.           With   the   assistance   of   learned   counsel,   I   have <\/p>\n
     perused the relevant orders.  The order dated 18.06.2007 passed <\/p>\n
     by   the   Deputy   Commissioner   (Civil   Supplies)   shows   that   the <\/p>\n
     authority found that there were two enquiries and two different <\/p>\n
     reports.  Because of this finding, he felt that a third enquiry was <\/p>\n
     necessary.   The perusal of show cause notice dated 29.08.2008 <\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                              4<\/span>
\n     shows that it was based on report of Tahasildar dated 2\/8\/2008 <\/p>\n
     in pursuance of the order dated 18.06.2007 itself. It gave details <\/p>\n
     of malpractices & 15 instances.  It is, therefore, obvious that the <\/p>\n
     authorization   in  favour  of  the  petitioner was  already canceled <\/p>\n
     earlier and it was restored on 06.07.2009.  The said investigation <\/p>\n
     and old matter continued further and on 29.08.2008 show cause <\/p>\n
     notice is issued in furtherance thereof.   The report of Tahsildar <\/p>\n
     on   which   the   petitioner   has   placed   reliance   also   does   not <\/p>\n
     exonerate the petitioner.  It holds that for the food grains lifted <\/p>\n
     by him, the petitioner was not in a position to give satisfactory <\/p>\n
     explanation   and   there   were   irregularities   in   distribution.   The <\/p>\n
     recommendations of the Tahsildar to inflict minor punishment is, <\/p>\n
     therefore,   not   very   relevant.   It   can   not   affect   the   jurisdiction <\/p>\n
     conferred   by   law   on   statutory   authorities.   The   malpractices <\/p>\n
     noticed   can   not   be   viewed   as   minor   in   any   way.   The   DSO, <\/p>\n
     therefore,   has   correctly   observed   that   there   were   serious <\/p>\n
     irregularities   and   hence   has   ordered   cancellation   of <\/p>\n
     authorization and forfeiture of security deposit.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.           Deputy Commissioner on 06.07.2009 overlooked the <\/p>\n
     fact that the shop was earlier already canceled and the said case <\/p>\n
     itself   was   going   on   further.     Deputy   Commissioner,   therefore, <\/p>\n
     erroneously   relied   upon   Government   Resolution   dated <\/p>\n
     12.11.1991  and held  that  the petitioner was  not given  proper <\/p>\n
     opportunity.  Then,  instead of directing department to give him <\/p>\n
     proper opportunity, only on that ground, the order has been set <\/p>\n
     aside by him and fine of Rs.1,000\/- came to be inflicted.   The <\/p>\n
     Deputy   Commissioner   has   not   recorded   a   finding   that   the <\/p>\n
     conclusions drawn by DSO in his order dated 15.06.2009 are in <\/p>\n
     any way erroneous or then charges proved against the petitioner <\/p>\n
     were not of grave or serious nature.   The Hon’ble Minister has <\/p>\n
     noticed these aspects and therefore has interfered in the matter <\/p>\n
     in   revision   and   restored   the   penalty   of   forfeiture   of   the <\/p>\n
     cancellation   of   authorization.     There   is   no   variation   of <\/p>\n
     Government Resolution dated 12.11.1991.\n<\/p>\n
     6.           Earlier   the   Deputy   Commissioner   noticed   two <\/p>\n
     different reports and hence called for the third report. On this <\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                6<\/span>
\n     occasion said report dated 02.08.2008 is not even perused and <\/p>\n
     issuance of show cause notice dated 29.08.2008 by DSO or reply <\/p>\n
     dated 08.09.2008 by petitioner to it is conveniently overlooked <\/p>\n
     to  grant   relief   to   petitioner.     The   fact   that   old  case   itself  was <\/p>\n
     going   on   is   also   forgotten   and   GR   dated   12.11.1991   is   relied <\/p>\n
     upon to justify favour shown to petitioner. Even while so doing <\/p>\n
     the   finding   in   impugned   order   dated   15.06.2009   recorded   by <\/p>\n
     DSO   on   misconducts   are   not   demonstrated   to   be   either <\/p>\n
     erroneous and categorization of the same as serious misconducts <\/p>\n
     by   State   Government   it   said   Government   Resolution   itself   has <\/p>\n
     been   ignored.   This   attitude   and   approach   of     Deputy <\/p>\n
     Commissioner   as   appellate   authority   functioning   under   an <\/p>\n
     important welfare enactment is against the public interest and <\/p>\n
     defeats   the   very   purpose   of   public   distribution   system.   This <\/p>\n
     authority has itself violated the procedure and precautions to be <\/p>\n
     adopted   in   such   matters   prescribed   therein   by   Government   to <\/p>\n
     improve   its   penal   actions   and   avoid   adverse   court   orders   on <\/p>\n
     technical grounds. The order impugned herein & passed by the <\/p>\n
     Hon. Minister in fact advances the spirit behind said Government <\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 7<\/span>
\n     Resolution and cause of public distribution system. Respondent <\/p>\n
     No. 1 State Government needs to take stern steps to avoid such <\/p>\n
     undue liberal approach on part of its officers.\n<\/p>\n
     7.               In   writ   jurisdiction,   therefore,   I   am   not   inclined   to <\/p>\n
     interfere   in   the   matter.     In   any   case,   violation   of  Government <\/p>\n
     Resolution dated 12.11.1991 cannot be a ground to invoke writ <\/p>\n
     jurisdiction in present circumstances.  I do not find any merit in <\/p>\n
     writ   petitioner   and   hence,   the   same   is   dismissed.     Rule <\/p>\n
     discharged.         However,   in  the  facts  and  circumstances of  the <\/p>\n
     case, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           JUDGE
\n                                            *******<\/p>\n
     *GS.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:20:22 :::<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 Bench: B. P. Dharmadhikari 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 4114 OF 2010 Dhyaneshwar Mahadeo Ambure, aged about 55 years, occupation Business, r\/o Wadgaon Range, Tq. Karanja, District – Washim. … PETITIONER Versus 1. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-170382","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBusiness vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-08T02:45:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T02:45:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":936,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T02:45:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-08T02:45:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T02:45:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010"},"wordCount":936,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010","name":"Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T02:45:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/business-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-27-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Business vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170382","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=170382"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170382\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170382"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170382"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170382"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}